FT 

riEPDE 

JK 1595 
.P3 
1912c 
Copy 2 


SENATE 


j Document 
I No. 886 


ANSWER 

OF 


ROBERT W. ARCHBALD 


Additional Circuit Judge of the United States from the Third Judicial Circuit 
arid designated a Judge of the Commerce Court 


TO 

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
EXHIBITED AGAINST HIM BY THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF 
THE UNITED STATES 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1912 

Z- 







In the Senate of the United States, 

July 29^ 1912. 

Ordered.^ That the answer of the respondent Robert W. Archbald, 
additional circuit judge of the United States from the third judicial 
circuit, and designated as one of the judges of the United States 
Commerce Court, to the articles of impeachment exhibited against 
him by the House of Representatives, be printed for the use of the 
Senate sitting in the trial of said impeachment. 

Attest: 

Charles G. Bennett, Secretary. 


U rtf % ^ 
kUG 8 1912 


2 


Ai^wsf >‘}l 




ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


In the Senate of the United States sitting as a Court of Impeachinent 
for the trial of Robert Wodrow ArcKbald^ a circuit judge of the 
United States. 

ANSWER OF THE SAID ROBERT WODROW ARCHBALD TO THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED AGAINST HIM BY THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Answer to Article 1. 

For answer to the first article the respondent says: 

1. That the said first article does not set forth anything which, if 
true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or misde¬ 
meanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and that 
therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should not 
further entertain the charge contained in said first article. 

2. The respondent admits that some time early in the spring of 
1911 and prior to the 31st day of March of that year Edward J. Wil¬ 
liams informed respondent that John M. Eobertson owned an interest 
in the Katydid culm dump near Moosic, Pa.^ and that he, Williams, 
could get an option on Eobertson’s interest in said culm dump, and 
suggested to the respondent that if a similar option could be obtained 
from the Flillside Coal & Iron Co. for its interest in said Katydid 
culm dump the dump could be sold to advantage. At the same time 
said Williams suggested to the respondent that if both of said inter¬ 
ests in the said dump should thus be acquired by respondent and 
himself a profit of two or three thousand dollars each to said Wil¬ 
liams and the respondent could be made by a resale of said dump. 
At the same time said Williams suggested to respondent that he, the 
respondent, should communicate with Capt. William A. May, the 
superintendent of said Hillside Coal & Iron Co.^to ascertain whether 
said company would sell its interest in said culm dump; and if so, 
on what terms. 

The respondent thereupon, by telephone, inquired of Capt. May 
whether it would be possible to secure an option upon the dump in 
question from the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. Over the telephone 
said Capt. May informed the respondent, in substance, that it had 
been the ordinary policy of said company to keep its culm dumps, 
but that the circumstances relating to the Katydid culm dump were 
peculiar, and if the respondent would write a letter to him on the 
subject he would submit it to the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. Accord¬ 
ingly, on the 31st day of March, 1911, the respondent wrote and 

3 





4 


ANSWEK OF JUDGE AKCHBALD. 


handed to said Williams, to be by him delivered to Capt. May, a 
letter, of which the following is a copy: 

W. A. May, Esq., 

Superintendent Hillside Goal d Iron Co. 

Dear Sir: I write to inquire whether your company will dispose of yoiu 
interest in the Katydid culm dump, belonging to the old Robertson & Law 
operation, at Brownsville; and, if so, will you kindly put a price upon it? 

Yours, very truly, 

R. W. Archbald. 

Several weeks thereafter, nothing having been heard by the re¬ 
spondent from Capt. May in response to said letter, and said 
Williams in the meantime having frequently called upon the re¬ 
spondent in reference to the matter, the respondent again, by tele¬ 
phone, inquired of Capt. May what had been done. Capt. May 
replied that Mr. G. A. Kichardson, one of the vice presidents of the 
Hillside Coal & Iron Co., was to be in Scranton in a few days, and 
that he, May, would go over the matter with said Kichardson, and 
would let the respondent know the result. During the greater part 
of the month of July the respondent was holding a circuit court of 
the United States in New York City, and spent the whole of that 
month in that city, except that he went home to Scranton at the end 
of each week. Up to this time there had been no reply received from 
Capt. May in regard to said proposed option, and said Robertson, 
the owner of the other interest, was not disposed to allow the verbal 
option, which he had given to said Williams, to remain open indefi¬ 
nitely. Upon being informed of this by said Williams, the respond¬ 
ent, on the 4th day of August, 1911, while in New York in perform¬ 
ance of his duties as circuit judge, as above stated, called on George 
F. Brownell, at his office in New York City, said Brownell being 
then the general counsel of both the Erie Railroad Co. and of the 
Hillside Coal & Iron Co., the latter company being a subsidiary of 
the former company. The respondent called upon said Brownell, 
because he had been informed—by said Williams, as the respondent 
recollects—that the question of said Robertson’s claim to an interest 
in the Katydid culm dump had been submitted to said Brownell. 
On that occasion the respondent informed said Brownell that he 
had called upon him because he understood that he, Brownell, had 
considered the question of Robertson’s interest in the Katydid culm 
dump, and further told him that he, Robertson, had promised that 
he would sell his interest in said dump, and that if he, the respond¬ 
ent, could acquire the interest of the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. in 
said dump the conflict of interests which had theretofore interfered 
with any sale of said dump would be ended. Said Brownell there¬ 
upon took the respondent to the office of said Richardson in the same 
building, informing the respondent that said Richardson Avas the 
proper officer of the company to pass upon the matter. Said 
Brownell introduced the respondent to said Richardson. Respond¬ 
ent then stated to said Richardson that he, respondent, was there 
simply for the purpose of getting an early answer one way or the 
ether from the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. to the request which had 
been made of that company for an option on its interest in the Katy¬ 
did culm dump. Said Richardson then informed the respondent 
that he would communicate with Capt. May upon the subject. The 
respondent heard nothing further until on or about August 29, 1911, 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


5 


when he casually met said Capt. May on the street in Scranton, and 
was then informed by Capt. May that the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. 
naa decided to sell its interest in that culm dump and requested 
respondent to tell Williams to come and see him, May. The re- 
spond^t immediately notified said Williams of this conversation 
with Capt. May, and on the following day, as the respondent is 
iniormea and believes, said Williams received from Capt. May a 
letter, m the words and figures folloAving: 


York; Susquehanna & Western 
genirfl manage?T Mining & Exchange Co.; Blossburg Coal Co. Office of the 


Mr. E. J, Williams, 

626 South Blakely Street, Dunmore, Pa. 


Scranton, Pa., August 30, 1911. 


Dear Sir: As stated to you to-day, verbally, I shall recommend the sale of 
^hateyer interest the Hillside Coal & Iron Co. has in what is known as the 
Katydid culm dump, made by Messrs. Robertson & Law, in the operation of 
the Katydid brenker, for $4,500. 

Til order that it may not be lost sight of, I will mention that any coal above 
the size of pea coal will be subject to a royalty to the owners of lot 46, upon 
the surface of which the bank is located. 

It is also understood that the bank will not be conveyed to anyone else with¬ 
out the consent of the H. C. & I. Co., and that if the offer is accepted articles 
of agreement will be drawn to cover the transaction. 

Yours, very truly. 


W. A. May, General Manager. 


The respondent admits that during the whole period covered by 
the negotiations and transactions hereinabove referred to he was a 
judge of the United States Commerce Court, duH designated and 
acting as such judge; that during the same period the Erie Eailroad 
Co. was a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce and was 
a party litigant in certain suits, to wit, the Baltimore & Ohio Kail- 
road Co. et al. V. The Interstate Commerce Commission, Nos. 38 and 
39, in the United States Commerce Court; that said suit No. 38 was 
commenced by petition filed in said court April 12, 1911, and was 
heard by said court on May 17, 1911, on motion of the petitioners for 
a temporary injunction; "that on May 22, 1911,, a temporary in¬ 
junction was granted by said court in said case No. 38; that on 
June 13, 1911, the Interstate Commerce Commission appealed from 
the order granting said injunction to the Supreme Court of the 
United States; and that on June 16, 1911, the United States also ap¬ 
pealed to the Supreme Court from said order; that the said suit No. 
39 was begun by petition filed in the United States Commerce Court 
April 27, 1911; that a preliminary injunction was granted by said 
court on May 29,1911; that on June 6, 1911, the Interstate Commerce 
Commission appealed from the order granting said injunction to the 
Supreme Court of the United States; and that on June 16, 1911, the 
United States also appealed to the Supreme Court from said order. 

Respondent denies, except as hereinabove admitted, that he at any 
time or at any place, by correspondence or by personal conferences or 
otherwise, undertook to induce or influence or did induce or influence 
the officers of said Hillside Coal & Iron Co. or the officers of the Erie 
Railroad Co. to enter into any agreement to sell the interest of the 
Hillside Coal & Iron Co. in the Katydid culm dump. He denies that 
he willfully or unlawfully or corruptly or otherwise took any ad¬ 
vantage of" his official position as such judge to induce or influence 


6 


ANSWEK OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


the officials of the said Erie Eailroad Co. or of said Hillside Coal & 
Iron Co. to enter into any contract with him and the said Williams, 
or either of them. He denies that at the times and places stated in 
said first article, or at any other time or place, through the influence 
exerted by reason of his position as such judge, he willfully or un¬ 
lawfully or corruptly or otherwise induced the officials in said Erie 
Railroad Co., or any of them, or the officials of the Hillside Coal & 
Iron Co., or any of them, to enter into any contract with him and the 
said Williams, or either of them. 

Wherefore the said Robert W. Archbald denies that he is guilty 
of misbehavior as such judge or of any crime or misdemeanor as 
charged in said first article. 

Answer to Article 2. 

For answer to the second article respondent says: 

1. That the said second article does not set forth anything which, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or misde¬ 
meanor, as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and that 
the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should not further 
entertain the charge contained in said second article. 

2. The respondent admits that, on the 1st day of August, 1911, he 
was a United States circuit judge duly designated as one of the 
judges of the United States Commerce Court, and that he was then 
a judge of said court. He further admits, on information and belief, 
that on said day the Marian Coal Co., a corporation, was the owner— 
as lessee—of a certain culm dump at Taylor, Pa., and was then and 
there engaged in the business of washing and shipping coal; that 
prior to that time the said Marian Coal Co. had filed before the Inter¬ 
state Commerce Commission a complaint against the Delaware, Lack¬ 
awanna & ATestern Railroad Co. and five other railroad companies, 
as defendants, charging them, the said defendants, with discrimina¬ 
tion in rates and with excessive charges for the transportation of 
coal shipped by the Marian Coal Co. over their respective lines of 
road; that all of the said defendant companies were common carriers 
engaged in interstate commerce; and that the decision of said case 
by the Interstate Commerce Commission was subject to review at the 
instance of any party defendant thereto by the United States Com¬ 
merce Court. The respondent further avers that at the same time 
there was pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission an¬ 
other case in which the Marian Coal Co. was complainant and the 
Delaware, Lackawanna & AYestern Railroad Co. alone was defend¬ 
ant. He further admits, on information and belief, that one Christo¬ 
pher G. Boland and one AYilliam P. Boland and their brother, one 
James M. Boland, were the owners of two-thirds of the stock in the 
said Marian Coal Co., and as to the operation of said company had 
all the powers which a control of the majority of the stock might 
legally give them, and that said Christopher G. Boland and said 
AYilliam P. Boland engaged one George M. AVatson, an attorney at 
law, to endeavor to settle said cases then pending as aforesaid before 
the Interstate Commerce Commission, and certain other litigation 
in which the Marian Coal Co. was then involved, by selling to said 
Delaware, Lackawanna & AYestern Railroad Co. all the stock of the 
said Marian Coal Co. owned by the said Christopher G. Boland, 


ANSWEK OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


7 


William P. Boland, and James M. Boland. As to the averment in 
said article 2 contained that at the time aforesaid there was pending 
in the Commerce Court a certain suit entitled Baltimore & Ohio Kail- 
road Co. et al. V, Interstate Commerce Commission, No. 38, to which 
suit the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. was a liti¬ 
gant, the facts are as follows: The said suit was commenced by peti¬ 
tion filed April 12, 1911; was heard by said court on May 17, 1911, 
on motion of the petitioners for a temporary injunction; and on May 
22, 1911, a temporary injunction was granted by the said court. On 
June 13, 1911, the Interstate Commerce Commission took an appeal 
from the order granting said injunction to the Supreme Court of 
the United States, and on June 16, 1911, the United States took an 
appeal from the said order to the Supreme Court. 

The respondent denies that on the 1st day of August, 1911, or at 
ony other time, he, for a consideration, agreed to assist George M. 
Watson, either to settle the aforesaid cases in which the Marian Coal 
Co. was complainant, then pending before the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, or to sell to the said Delaware, Lackawanna & Western 
Railroad Co. the said two-thirds of the stock of the Marian Coal Co, 
Respondent avers the facts to be that on or about the said date said 
George M. Watson informed the respondent that he had been en¬ 
gaged as aforesaid by the said Christopher G. Boland and the said 
William P. Boland to endeavor to settle the litigation in question 
and also at the same time informed respondent that at the last hear¬ 
ing of said cases before the Interstate Commerce Commission, in 
which the Marian Coal Co. was complainant, there had been a sug~ 
gestion of a possible settlement. Thereupon said Watson requested 
the respondent to communicate with Edward E. Loomis, who was 
vice president of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. 
(and with whom respondent was well acquainted), and tell said 
Loomis that if he would see said Watson there was a possibility of 
the case being settled. Pursuant to this request of said Watson the 
respondent, while in New York holding a circuit court of the United 
States, on August 4, 1911, saw said Loomis at his office in New York 
City and told him what said Watson had said, as above stated. Sev¬ 
eral weeks thereafter said Watson inquired of the respondent whether 
he had seen said Loomis, and upon being informed of what had taken 
place between the respondent and said Loomis, as above set forth, he, 
Watson, informed respondent that he had heard nothing from said 
Loomis, and said Watson then requested the respondent to again bring 
the matter to the attention of said Loomis. This occurred at Scran¬ 
ton, Pa., on August 22,1911. On the day that this second request was 
made by said Watson as aforesaid, respondent, pursuant to the re¬ 
quest of said Watson, saw said Loomis in Scranton and informed 
said Loomis that Watson had told respondent that he had heard 
nothing from any official of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western 
Railroad Co. in regard to the matter in question. Said Loomis ex¬ 
pressed surprise at this and told respondent that he had theretofore 
given directions to have Reese A. Phillips, an official of the Delaware, 
Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co., see said Watson on the sub¬ 
ject. Following this, on several occasions, said Christopher G. 
Boland came to the office of the respondent to discuss the proposed 
settlement, informing the respondent that the troubles growing out 
of the litigation in which the Marian Coal Co. was then involved 


8 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


were so preying upon his brother, William P. Boland, that he was 
afraid that the latter’s mind might be affected, and he urged the 
respondent for that reason to endeavor to bring about the proposed 
settlement. On or about September 27, 1911, said Loomis, referring 
to the interview between him and the respondent, of August 22,1911, 
above mentioned, wrote to the respondent a letter of which the fol¬ 
lowing is a copy: 

September 27, 1911. 


Judge R. W. Aechbald, Soi'anton, Pa. 


My Dear Judge: As per our recent interview, I instructed our people to call 
on Attorney Watson in connection with the Boland case, and I find there is 
little, if any, prospect of our reaching any settlement of this case, owing to the 
very great difference of opinion as to the merits of Mr. Boland’s claims and the 
value of his properties. 

Thanking you, however, for your good efforts in this direction, I am. 

Very truly, yours, 


E. E. Loomis. 


On September 28, 1911, the respondent wrote and sent to said 
Loomis a letter, of which the following is a copy: 


[R. W. Archbald, judge United States Commerce Court, Washington.] 

Scranton, Pa., ^eptemher 28, 1911. 

My Dear Mr. Loomis : I am very sorry to have your letter stating that you 
have not been able to effect a settlement with Mr. Boland. I trust, however, that 
the matter is still not beyond remedy. And if I thought that it would help to 
secure an adjustment, I would offer my direct services. I have no interest 
except to try and do away with an unpleasant situation for both parties, and I 
hope that this still may be possible. 

Yours, very truly, R. W. Archbald. 

On September 30, 1911, said Phillips called upon the respondent 
and stated that the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. 
could not make any substantial offer to the Marian Coal Co. to 
settle the controversies between the two companies for the reason 
that the property of the Marian Coal Co. had comparatively little 
value. 

On October 3, 1911, the respondent, at the request of said Watson, 
wrote and sent to said Loomis a letter in the following words: 

United States Commerce Court, 

Washington, October 3, 1911. 

E. E. Loomis, Esq., 

Vice President Delaware, Lackatvanna d Western-, 

90 West street, Neiv York City. 

My Dear Mr. Loomis : I understand that there has been a suggestion that 
Mr. Watson meet you and possibly also Mr. Truesdale, and that Mr. Watson 
has written asking for an appointment. It seems to me, if I may be permitted 
to say so, that this is a very good idea. It will give you an opportunity to dis¬ 
cuss the Boland case with Mr. Watson upon a somewhat different basis than 
Col. Phillips* could, representing the coal department. 

I have little doubt but that it will appear so to you, and it may be altogether 
unnecessary for me to write about it. But I am sure you will not take it 
amiss to have me do so, and'I shall hope that a settlement may yet be reached 
in that way. There is nothing like a personal interview to bring about such a 
result. 

Yours, very truly, R. W. Archbald. 

On the 6th day of October, 1911, while the respondent was in the 
city of Washington, in attendance upon the Commerce Court, he re- 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 9 

ceived from said Watson a telegram, of which the following is a 
copy: 

Hon. R. W. Archbald, 

Judge, Court of Commerce, Washington, D. C.: 

Wire me East Stroudsburg what time to-morrow I can meet you in Wash¬ 
ington. 

G. M. Watson. 

To this telegram the respondent replied by telegram iis follows: 

George M. Watson, 

East Stroudsburg, Pa.: 

Almost any time you wish. 

R. W. Archbald. 

Pursuant to this telegram said Watson did come to Washington 
and saw the respondent on October 7, 1911. Said Watson then told 
the respondent that he had come to Washington to see the respondent 
at the express request of William P. Boland and Christopher G. 
Boland, to see whether something further could not be done in the 
matter of the proposed settlement, to which the respondent had 
nothing to suggest. As to what further conversation took place 
between the respondent and said Watson with regard to the said 
matter at that time the recollection of the respondent is too indis¬ 
tinct to enable him to make any averment, except that he can and 
does say that if anything further of importance had occurred he 
would remember it. On the same day, at the request of said Wat¬ 
son, the respondent obtained and gave to him a printed copy of the 
petition in the case of the Lehigh Valley Kailroad Co. v. The United 
States, being No. 49 on the docket of the United States Commerce 
Court, a case known as the Meeker case, in which the Interstate Com¬ 
merce Commission had rendered a decision which had a distinct 
bearing on one of the principal questions involved in the case of 
the Marian Coal Co. against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western 
Eailroad Co. 

On or about November 13, 1911, at the suggestion of either said 
Christopher G. Boland or of said Watson, the respondent again saAv 
said Loomis in Scranton and requested him to make an offer of some 
kind for the property of the Marian Coal Co., or for the interest of 
said Bolands in that company, by which all the litigation in which 
said Marian Coal Co. and said railroad were involved could be 
amicably settled. This endeavor was fruitless, and respondent im¬ 
mediately so notified said Christopher G. Boland by writing and 
sending to him a letter, of which the following is a copy. 

Scranton, Pa., November 13, 1911. 

C. G. Boland, Esq., Scranton, Pa. 

My Dear Christy: I had an interview with our friend this afternoon, and 
I regret to say that I did not succeed in doing anything. I tried to get him to 
make a counter proposition to the one which had been submitted upon your 
side, but he seemed to feel that the amount which he would be willing to 
offer was so inconsiderable that it was hardly worth the while. I regret to 
report this as the final outcome of the efforts of settlement which have been 
made, but I see nothing to be attained any further here. 

I return herewith the papers which you let me have. 

Yours, very truly, R. W. Archbald. 

The foregoing is, in substance, a statement of all that respondent 
had to do with the attempted settlement of the litigation referred to. 
In all that respondent did in the matter he acted as the friend of 


10 


ANSWEK OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


said Watson and as the friend of said Christopher G. Boland. Ke- 
spondent never received from any source whatever any suggestion 
that he was to be compensated in any way, directly or indirectly, for 
his attempt to bring about an amicable adjustment of the litigation 
in question, and in all that the respondent did in that regard he 
acted without any intention or expectation of receiving or asking 
for any compensation or reward. Respondent denies that at the times 
and places mentioned in said second article, or at any other time or 
place, he willfully or unlawfully or corruptly or otherwise used 
his influence as a circuit judge or as a judge of the United States 
Commerce Court to attempt to settle said cases of the Marian Coal 
Co. against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co., or 
to sell or bring about the sale of any stock of the Marian Coal Co. 
to said railroad company. 

Wherefore the said Robert W. Archbald denies that he was and is 
guilty of misbehavior as such judge or of a high crime and misde¬ 
meanor in office, as charged in said second article. 

Answer to Article 3. 

For answer to the third article the respondent says: 

1. That the said third article does not set forth anything which, if 
true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or misde¬ 
meanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and that 
therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should not 
further entertain the charge contained in said third article. 

2. Respondent admits that on or about October 1, 1911, he was 
United States circuit judge and a judge of the United States Com¬ 
merce Coi^rt, and that the Lehigh Valley Coal Co., a corporation, was 
practically owned b}’' the Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., which latter 
company was and is a common carrier engaged in interstate com¬ 
merce, He further admits that on or about said date said Lehigh 
Valley Railroad Co. was a party litigant in certain suits then pend¬ 
ing in the United States Commerce Court, as stated in said second 
article, except that as to the pendency of the said suit Ro. 38, the 
facts are as follows: Said suit was commenced by petition filed in 
said court on April 12, 1911. On May 17, 1911, a motion for a tem¬ 
porary injunction was argued, and on May 22, 1911, said injunction 
was granted. On June 13, 1911, the Interstate Commerce Commis¬ 
sion appealed from the order granting said injunction to the Supreme 
Court of the United States, and on June 16, 1911, the United States 
appealed from said order to the Supreme Court. At the time in 
question respondent knew that said railroad company was a party to 
said suits pending in the Commerce Court. As to the charge con¬ 
tained in said third article that on or about said last-mentioned date 
he, the respondent, secured from the Lehigh Valley Coal Co. an 
agreement which permitted him and his associates to lease a culm 
dump known as Packer No. 3, near Shenandoah, Pa., this respondent 
states that the facts are as follows: Said culm dump known as 
Packer No. 3 was owned by the city of Philadelphia as trustee under 
the will of Stephen Girard, deceased, which trust was administered 
through a body known as the board of city trusts. Prior to Octo¬ 
ber 1, 1911, said board of city trusts had leased said Packer No. 3 
culm dump, with a large amount of other property, to the Lehigh 


ANSWEK OF JUDGE AKCHBALD. 


11 


Valley Coal Co., which lease at that time had about two years to run. 
It is true that on or about September 28, 1911, at the request of the 
respondent, the said Lehigh Valley Coal Co. agreed (as respondent 
understood) that so far as it was concerned it would make no objec¬ 
tion to the said board of city trusts leasing to the respondent and 
his associates'said Packer No. 3 culm dump for a term beginning 
before the expiration of said lease to it, upon several conditions, one 
of which was that a certain royalty should be paid to the Lehigh 
Valley Coal Co. for any coal that might be taken from said dump, 
in addition to the royalty which should be payable to the said board 
of city trusts, and another of which was that any coal that should 
be taken from said culm dump should be shipped over the tracks of 
‘:he Lehigh Valley Eailroad Co. 

Respondent avers that he and his associates subsequently arranged 
with certain coal commission men that if said dump should be 
acquired by the respondent and his associates, the uoal to be taken 
therefrom, after being washed and prepared for market, should be 
sold to said coal commission men at the dump. The respondent, 
however, admits that it was his understanding that the coal, by whom¬ 
soever sent to market, would have to be shipped over the Lehigh 
Valley Railroad Co. lines. 

As to the averment of said third article that said Packer No. 3 
dump contained 472,670 tons of coal, respondent says he has even 
now no absolute knowledge. His information at the time of the 
negotiations in question, from one source, was that it contained 
“ about three or four hundred thousand tons,” and his information 
from another source was that it contained a much less quantity. 

This respondent denies that in what he did in reference to said 
Packer No. 3 culm dump, as above set forth, he unlawfully or cor¬ 
ruptly or otherwise used his official position or his official influence, 
as such judge, to secure from the Lehigh Valley Coal Co. said agree¬ 
ment or any agreement. 

Wherefore the said respondent denies that he was and is guilty 
of misbehavior as such judge, or of a misdemeanor in such office, as 
charged in said third article. 

Answer to Article 4. 

For answer to the fourth article, the respondent says: 

1. That the said fourth article does not set forth anything which, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or misde¬ 
meanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and that 
therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should not 
further entertain the charge contained in said fourth article. 

2. The respondent admits that, prior to the 4th day of April, 1911, 
there was pending in the United States Commerce Court the suit of 
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. The Interstate Commerce 
Commission; that that suit was argued before the United States 
Commerce Court on the 4th day of April, 1911, and that afterwards, 
on the 22d day of August, 1911, while said suit was still pending in 
said court and before the same had been decided and while he, the 
respondent, was a member of the United States Commerce Court, 
he wrote to Helm Bruce, who was one of the attorneys for the said 
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., a letter, in which he requested 


12 


ANSWER OF JUDGE AECHBALD. 


said attorney to see one of the witnesses who had testified in said 
suit on behalf of said company and to get his explanation and inter¬ 
pretation of certain testimony that said witness had given before the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, and communicate the same to 
respondent. This letter was written in the endeavor to ascertain 
the position taken by witness and counsel in regard to what seemed 
at the time to the respondent to be an ambiguity in the testimony of 
the said witness, the true construction and meaning of which ap¬ 
peared to the respondent from his study of the case to be contrary 
to that which had been put upon it by the Interstate Commerce Com¬ 
mission. After receiving the answer of the said Helm Bruce, upon 
a further consideration of the case, taking the evidence as it stood, 
without reference to the explanation contained in the letter, the 
conclusions deduced by the Interstate Commerce Commission were 
held in the opinion of the court to be unwarranted. As throwing 
some light upon the matter, however, the respondent inserted the 
letter in the record at the place in the testimony to which it referred, 
so that all parties might know and have the benefit of it. 

Respondent further admits that afterwards, on the 10th day of 
January, 1912, while said suit was still pending and before the same 
had been decided by the United States Commerce Court, he, the 
respondent, wrote to the said Helm Bruce another letter, in which 
he said that other members of the United States Commerce Court 
had discovered evidence in the record with regard to another matter 
apparently contrary to the statements and contentions made by said 
attorney, and requested said attorney to make an explanation and 
answer thereto. This letter was written under the following cir¬ 
cumstances : 

Upon examination of the evidence by the court after the arguments 
were closed a fact was apparently discovered tending to support one 
of the conclusions of the commission, which is thus stated in the 
opinion of the dissenting judge: 

For example, the ’^ iew taken by the commission of the Cooley adjustment is 
fully justified, in my judgment, by the fact that the relation of rates thereby 
established in 1886 was departed from not as to some, but as to a great many, 
commodity rates, and that, too. at many times. * ♦ * 

Upon this fact an argument adverse to the petitioner was advanced. 
This fact had not been noticed by the commission or by counsel, and 
it seemed to the respondent that counsel for the petitioner ought, in 
fairness and in the interest of justice, to have an opportunity to 
ansAver the argument. To give him this opportunity the letter was 
written. 

Respondent denies that in writing or sending either of said letters 
to said Helm Bruce he was guilty of gross or improper conduct or 
of a misdemeanor as a circuit judge or as a member of the Com¬ 
merce Court. He denies that in any proper sense either of said let¬ 
ters was written secretly or wrongfully or unlawfully. He admits 
that in so far as he was aware the fact that either of said letters 
was so written was not made Imown to the Interstate Commerce 
Commission or its attorneys at the time it was so written. But in 
this connection he avers that in their briefs and also in the oral argu¬ 
ment of the case the counsel for the Interstate Commerce Commis¬ 
sion and the counsel for the United States had distinctly declined to 
discuss any question relating to the details of the evidence, insisting 


ANSWEK OF JUDGE AKCHBALD. 13 

that the Commerce Court had no right to look into the evidence in 
the case. 

The respondent admits that said Helm Bruce complied with the 
request contained in each of said letters to him. 

Wherefore the respondent denies that he was and is guilty of 
misbehavior in office or was and is guilty of a misdemeanor, as 
charged in said fourth article. 

Answer to Article 5. 

For answer to the fifth article the respondent says: 

1. That the said fifth article does not set forth anything which, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or mis¬ 
demeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and 
that therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should 
not further entertain the charge contained in said fifth article. 

2. The respondent avers that some time in November, 1911, he was 
informed by one Frederick Warnke, whom he had known for a num¬ 
ber of years, that a year or two before that time he—Warnke—had 
been engaged in a coal operation in Schuylkill County, Pa., under a 
lease which had been executed by the Philadelphia & Reading Coal 
& Iron Co., as lessors, to other parties, from whom he, the said 
Warnke, had purchased it; that the said lease included an under¬ 
ground mine and a surface washery, and after having been operated 
by the said Warnke for some time, during which the Avashery was 
burned down and had been rebuilt by the said Warnke, the said 
Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., through W. J. Richards, 
its general manager, had refused to further recognize his rights 
thereto, on the ground that said lease was nonassignable. The said 
Warnke further represented that he had invested in this operation 
a large amount of money, which he would lose unless his rights should 
be recognized by said company; and he therefore asked the respond¬ 
ent whether he would not see the said Richards and endeavor to have 
him recognize Warnke’s rights. He further said to the respondent 
that if he should not be allowed to operate the said mine under the 
said lease he would be satisfied if he could get from the said Phila¬ 
delphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., through the said Richards, a 
lease of the so-called Lincoln culm dump, which, he said, the Phila¬ 
delphia & Reading Coal & Irion Co. apparently cared little about, as 
it was covering said dump with rock and other refuse which would 
seriously and permanently injure it. Solely out of friendship for 
said Warnke, and because of the serious financial loss which was 
likely to result to him, the respondent acceded to this request, and 
on November 24, 1911, arranged with said Richards to meet him at 
Pottsville, Pa., on November 28 following, on which day the respond¬ 
ent was to be in Pottsville on other business. Accordingly on the 
last-mentioned day respondent met said Richards in Pottsville and 
presented the request of Warnke as above set forth. Said Richards 
informed respondent that the matter had already been fully consid¬ 
ered, in response to requests from several other persons, and that 
neither of Warnke’s requests could be granted, as Warnke had 
already been told. Respondent did nothing further in this matter 
except to report the interview to Warnke. 


14 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


At the time of said interview respondent did not know, as charged 
in said article, that the general policy of said company was adverse 
to the leasing of any of its culm banks; that any communication 
had been had with George F, Baer, president of said company, with 
regard to it: or that Warnke had made several attempts, through 
his attorneys and friends, to have the said George F. Baer and the 
said IT. J. Richards reconsider their decision in the premises, but 
without avail; or that anything had ever been said to any official of 
the said company with regard to a lease of any kind to Warnke of 
the Lincoln culm dump; but respondent is now informed of these 
facts and believes and admits them to be true. 

Respondent further admits that on November 1, 1911, and there¬ 
after until the present time, he was a United States circuit judge, 
having been duly designated as one of the judges of the United sStates 
Commerce Court. Respondent also admits that the Philadelphia & 
Readiiig Railroad Co. is a common carrier engaged in interstate 
commerce, but whether the entire capital stock of the Philadelphia & 
Reading Coal & Iron Co. is owned by the Reading Co., and whether 
the last-named company owns the entire capital stock of the Phila¬ 
delphia & Reading Railroad Co., as averred in said article, he does 
not know, but has no reason to doubt or deny. At the times afore¬ 
said, however, respondent knew that there was an intimate relation 
between the said companies. 

Respondent denies that he wrongfully or otherwise attempted to 
use or did use his influence as such judge to aid or assist the said 
Frederick Warnke to secure a lease of any kind of the Lincoln 
culm dump or in any of the matters above referred to. 

Except as above admitted, respondent at the times above referred 
to had and now has no knowledge of and no information sufficient 
to form a belief of the truth of the other matters set forth in the first 
and second paragraphs of said fifth article. 

Respondent denies that at the time referred to in the third para¬ 
graph of said fifth article or at any other time he willfully, unlaw¬ 
fully, or corruptly, or otherwise accepted as a gift, reward, or pres¬ 
ent from the said Frederick Warnke, in consideration of favors 
shown by the respondent to said Warnke in the effort to effect a set¬ 
tlement or agreement with the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Co. 
and the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., or either of them, 
or for other favors shown by respondent to said Frederick Warnke, 
a certain promissory note for $500, executed by the firm of Warnke 
& Co., of which the said Frederick Warnke was a member, as the 
same is averred in the said fifth article. The respondent avers the 
fact to be that, with one John Henry elones, he afterwards rendered 
services in bringing about the sale by the Lacoe & Shiffer Coal Co. 
of a certain culm bank, known as the Old Gravity Fill, to the Premier 
Coal Co., with which last-named company said Warnke was con¬ 
nected, and that a note for $510, made by said Premier Coal Co. and 
indorsed by said Warnke and other persons connected with said 
Premier Coal Co., was given to the respondent and said Jones as 
compensation for such services so rendered by them. 

Wherefore respondent denies that he was and is guilty of misbe¬ 
havior as a judge or of high crimes or misdemeanors in office, as 
charged in said fifth article. 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


15 


Answer to Article G. 

lor answer to the sixth article the respondent says: 

1. That the said sixth article does not set forth anything which, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or mis¬ 
demeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and 
that therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should 
not further entertain the charge contained in said sixth article. 

2. That while respondent denies that on or about the 1st day of 
December, 1911, or at any other time, he unlawfully or improperly or 
corruptly or otherwise attempted to use his influence as a circuit 
judge or as a judge of the United States Commerce Court with the 
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. and the Lehigh Valley Kailroad Co., or with 
either of them, to induce the officers of said companies, or either of 
them, to purchase any interest belonging to persons known as the 
Everhardt heirs in any tract of coal land containing 800 acres, or to 
purchase any interest in any tract of land, respondent is advised and 
avers that said article is general, vague, and indefinite with regard to 
the offense sought to be charged therein; that it does not sufficiently 
inform respondent in what respect he is intended to be charged as 
having attempted to use his influence as United States circuit judge 
and judge of the United States Commerce Court with the Lehigh 
Valley Coal Co. and the Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., in that it does 
not state in what said attempts consisted or with what officers or 
agents of said company, or either of them, or under what circum¬ 
stances the alleged attempts were made, and does not in any other way 
give respondent such information as to the real charge intended to 
be made against him in the said sixth article as will enable him to 
prepare for trial thereon. 

Wherefore the respondent prays that said sixth article shall be 
adjudged to be null and void and that the same shall be dismissed. 

Answer to Article T. 

For answer to the seventh article the respondent says: 

1. That the said seventh article does not set forth anything which, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or mis¬ 
demeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and 
that therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should 
not further entertain the charge contained in said seventh article. 

2. Respondent admits that during the months of October and 
November, 1908, there were pending in the United States Circuit 
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in the city of Scran¬ 
ton, Pa., over which court the respondent was then presiding, several 
actions at law wherein a corporation called the Old Plymouth Coal 
Co. was plaintiff and certain fire insurance corporations were de¬ 
fendants. 

Respondent avers that said suits were commenced by the plaintiff 
in the court of common pleas of Luzerne County, in the State of 
Pennsylvania, and on October 3, 1908, on petition of the defendants, 
were removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the 
Middle District of Pennsylvania. 

On November 18, 1908, said suits came on to be tried before 
respondent sitting as trial judge, and a jury, all the suits being tried 


16 


ANSWER OF JUDGE AECHBALD. 


together, at which time one John T. Lenahan appeared as one of 
the attorneys for the plaintiff. After the plaintiff’s evidence was 
presented, the defendants moved for a nonsuit. Respondent, as trial 
judge, denied said motion. Defendants thereupon introduced evi¬ 
dence, before the conclusion of which, on November 21, 1908, an 
agreement of settlement was reached of all the suits. The jury was 
thereupon dismissed, and consent judgments for the plaintiff were 
entered on November 23, 1908. The judgment in the suit against 
one company, known as the Pacific Fire Insurance Co. of the City 
of New York, was for $2,500, to be discharged upon the payment 
of $2,129.63 within 15 days from November 23, 1908. Similar judg¬ 
ments in varying amounts were entered against the other companies. 

At the time of said trial, and for some time before, respondent 
knew that W. W. Rissinger and his brother owned the principal part 
of the stock of the Old Plymouth Coal Co. 

On or about November 28, 1908, at W. W. Rissinger’s request, re¬ 
spondent indorsed a note for $2,500 made by said Rissinger and also 
indorsed by Sophia J. Hutchinson, which said note was indorsed by 
respondent solely for the accommodation of the said Rissinger, for 
the purpose of enabling said Rissinger, by discounting the said note, 
to raise money to use for his own purposes. This note was discounted 
by the County Savings Bank, of Scranton, and the whole of the pro¬ 
ceeds received by said Rissinger, and has been renewed from time to 
time with respondent’s indorsement, the discount being paid by the 
said Rissinger; and the last renewal is still outstanding. As to the 
averment contained in said seventh article that before the expiration 
of said 15 days the said Rissinger, with the knowledge and consent 
of the respondent, presented said note to the said John T. Lenahan 
for discount, respondent says that he has no personal knowledge as 
to the facts, and that if said note was so presented to the said Lena¬ 
han for discount it was without the knowledge, consent, or authority- 
of respondent. 

Respondent denies that on or about November 1, 1908, or at any 
other time, he entered into any agreement with said W. W. Rissinger 
in relation to the purchase of stock in any gold-mining scheme in 
Honduras or elsewhere which was in any .sense wrongful or corrupt. 
He admits that beginning in September, 1908, he had conversations 
with said Rissinger and others in reference to a mining scheme in 
Honduras and that the negotiations between him, Rissinger, and 
other persons were pending at the time of the trial of said cases. He 
further admits that three months after said note was executed, to wit, 
in February, 1909, he received from said Rissinger certificates repre¬ 
senting stock in a corporation organized by said Rissinger and others 
for the purpose of operating a gold-placer mine in Honduras. Re¬ 
spondent further avers that when he so indorsed said note he under¬ 
stood that he was indorsing it, as hereinbefore stated, solely for the 
accommodation of said Rissinger, and that when he subsequently 
received from said Rissinger said certificates of stock, they were 
given him only as collateral security for his liability as indorser of 
said note. Respondent has recently learned, however, that said Ris¬ 
singer claims that the agreement between him and the respondent 
was that the respondent should purchase stock to the amount of one- 
third of said note, and that respondent was to be liable for one- 
third of the note, and that he received such certificates of stock nol 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


17 


as security, but as the owner thereof. To the best of the respondeiitV 
present knowledge and belief, there was a misunderstanding between 
said Kissinger and himself, as indicated above, when said note was 
indorsed and said stock delivered to respondent. Kespondent further 
avers that whether the understanding of respondent or the under¬ 
standing of said Kissinger with regard to said transactions is cor¬ 
rect, the transactions have no relevancy whatever to the judicial 
action of the respondent in the trial of said cases. In the ruling 
wdiich he made during the trial of said cases referred to in said sev¬ 
enth article, he acted solely upon his judgment as to the merits of the 
question which had been submitted to him in the motion for a non¬ 
suit. 

Wherefore respondent denies that any of said acts on his part were 
improper or unbecorning, and denies that said acts or any of them 
constituted misbehavior in his said office as judge, and denies that 
any of them render him guilty of a misdemeanor. 

Answer to Article 8. 

For answer to the eighth article, the respondent says: 

1. That the said eighth article does not set forth anything which, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or misde¬ 
meanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and that 
therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should not 
further entertain the charge contained in said eighth article. 

2. Kespondent admits that during the summer and fall of the year 
1909 there was pending in the United States Circuit Court for the 
Middle District of Pennsjdvania, in the city of Scranton, over which 
court the respondent was presiding as the duly appointed judge 
thereof, a civil action involving a large sum of money, wherein the 
Marian Coal Co. was defendant. He further admits on information 
and belief that the said Marian Coal Co. was a corporation and that 
two-thirds of the stock of said company was owned and controlled by 
one William P. Boland and one Christopher G. Boland and one 
James M. Boland. He admits that while said suit was so pending, 
one John Henry Jones signed a note for $500 payable to the order 
of the respondent, which note the respondent then indorsed, and that 
said note was prepared for the signature of the said John Henry 
Jones by the respondent. As to the averment contained in said 
eighth article that during the pendency of said suit he, the re¬ 
spondent. wrongfully agreed and consented that the said note should 
be presented to the said Christopher G. Boland and the said William 
I^. Boland or one of them for the purpose of having the sa^ note 
discounted, respondent says that the facts are as follows: Said note 
was indorsed by respondent solely for the accommodation of said 
Jones, to be discounted for his sole benefit, and it was so discounted 
by the Providence Bank of Scranton. When respondent indorsed 
said note he had no knowledge or concern where or by whom it wafs 
to be discounted. He did not at any time know to whom it had been 
or would be presented for discounf, except that said Jones, at some 
time after it was executed and indorsed, respondent is uncertain 
Avhen. told respondent that one Edward J. Williams, who was inter¬ 
ested with Jones in the enterprise for Avhicli the money was to be 

S. I >of. 8 S(k 02-2-2 


18 


AXSWEK OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


raised, thoiiglit that Christopher G. Boland woidd discount the note 
becanse, as he, Williams, claimed, said Christopher G. Boland was 
indebted to him in a considerable sum of money on account of another 
transaction, and except also that respondent had a conversation with 
reference to the discounting of said note by said Providence Bank 
with one Charles H. Von Storch, the president of said bank. 
Whether at the time in (piestion respondent knew that Christopher 
G. Boland was a stockholder in the Marian Coal Co. and interested 
in the suit against said company then pending in said court, re¬ 
spondent can not now recollect. He does now admit the fact to be 
that said Christopher G. Boland was at that time so interested in 
said suit. 

The respondent admits that Avhen he was inf(;rme(l. as above 
stated, that said note might be presented to Christoj)her G. Boland 
for discount, he made no comment. If, before that time, he had 
learned that said Christopher G. Boland was interested in litigation 
in the court over which respondent was then presiding, that fact did 
not recur to his mind at that time. The respondent denies that in 
any proper sense he ever wrongfully agreed or consented that said 
note should be presented to said Christopher G. Boland for discount, 
and he denies that he ever, in any way, agreed or consented that said 
note should be presented to said William P. Boland for discount. 

Wherefore the respondent denies that he was guilty of gross mis¬ 
conduct in his office as judge or was and is guilty of a misdemeanor in 
his said office as judge, as charged in said eighth article. 

Answer to Article 9. 

For answer to the ninth article, the respondent says: 

1. That the said ninth article does not set forth anything which, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or mis¬ 
demeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and that 
therefore the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, should not 
further entertain the charge contained in said ninth article. 

2. Eespondent admits that on or about December 3, 1909, while he 
was United States district judge in and for the middle district of 
Pennsylvania, in the city of Scranton, he, in the city of Scranton, 
wrote a promissory note in the sum of $500 payable to himself, which 
said note was signed by one John Henry Jones and indorsed by the 
respondent for the purpose of having the same discounted. He avers 
that said note was indorsed by him solely for the accommodation of 
said John Henry Jones, and that said note is the same note which is 
referred to in the eighth article. Respondent admits that shortly 
afterwards said John Henry Jones presented said note for discount 
to one Charles H. Von Storch, who was then president of the Provi¬ 
dence Bank in Scranton. He further admits that thereupon said 
Von Storch by telephone inquired of the respondent whether he, the 
respondent, had indorsed said note, and he, the respondent, replied 
to that inquiry in the affirmative; and that thereupon said Von Storch 
caused said bank to discount said note. Respondent further admits 
that said Von Storch at the time in question was an attorney at law, 
but he avers that to the best of his recollection and belief said Von 
Storch had never appeared as an attorney in any case before the 
respondent as a United States judge prior to the time said note 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


19 


was so discounted. lie admits that nearly a year before the present¬ 
ing of said note to said Von Storch as aforesaid a suit in the circuit 
court of said district ])resided over by the res}>()ndent, in which said 
Von Storch was a party defendant, was decided in favor of the 
defendants upon a ruling made by the res])ondent. The respcmdent 
denies that at the time of said transaction he knew that his indorse¬ 
ment would not secure money in the usual commercial channels, and 
denies that he wrongfully permitted said John Henry Jones to pre¬ 
sent said note for discount to said Von Storch, and denies that he 
wrongfully or improperly or otherwise used his influence as such 
judge to induce said ATni Storch to discount said note. On informa¬ 
tion and belief the respondent admits that said note was discounted 
by said bank at or about the time of his said conversation by tele¬ 
phone with said Von Storch, and that it has been renewed from time ^ 
to time for the same amount, excejJ that $25 has been paid thereon 
by said Jones. He admits that the last renewal is still due and owing. 

AVherefore the respondent denies that he was or is guilty of gross 
misconduct in his said office, or was and is guilty of a misdemeanor 
in his said office as judge, as charged in said ninth article. 

Answer to Arttct^ 10. 

For answer to the tenth article the respondent says: 

1. That the said tenth article does not set forth anything which, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or mis¬ 
demeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and 
that therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should 
not further entertain the charge contained in said tenth article. 

2. Respondent admits that throughout the year 1910 he was United 
States district judge in and for the middle district of Pennsylvania. 
As to the averments of the tenth article relating to the alleged 
receipt of a large sum of money by the respondent from one Henry 
W. Cannon, respondent denies every allegation of said article except 
as the same is herein expressly admitted. The facts with regard to 
the matter are as follows: Said Henry W. Cannon and the wife of 
this respondent, Phizabeth C. Archb'ald. ar- full cousins, in that 
Benjamin Cannon, father of the said P^lizabeth. was full brother to 
George Cannon, father of said Henry AV. Cannon. 

On March 23, 1910, Mrs. Archbald received from her cousin, said 
Henry AV. Cannon, of New York City, a letter inviting her to take 
a trip to P^urope at his expense and in his company, for the purpose, 
among other things, of visiting him at his residence near P'lorence, 
Italy, and suggested the respondent’s daughter, Mrs. Anna Silvey, 
as a‘com])anion. It was stated in said letter that the writer supposed 
that respondent would not be able to accompany Mrs. Archbald, 
on account of his judicial work, but it was intimated that if the fact 
was otherwise, he, the said Henry AAh Cannon, would be glad to 
have respondent accompany Mrs. Archbald in place of their daughter. 
It was necessarv that said P^lizabeth C. Archbald while traveling 
should have a comi)anion, because she was in ill health. Respondent 
-had had no vacation for six or seven years prior to that time. Upon 
consultation Avith the other judges of the circuit he found that he 
could be excused from service Avithout detriment to the Avork of his 


20 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


district, and thereupon respondent, with Mrs. Archbald, accepted the 
invitation. On April 16,1910, respondent and Mrs. Archbald sailed, 
with said Henry W. Cannon, from New York on the steamship 
Kaiserin Augusta Victoria, traveled with him in Europe, and visited 
him at his residence in Florence, bein^' gone nearly three months 
and returning with him to the United States on July 8 following. 

When said invitation was given and accepted, and when said trip 
was made by the respondent and his Avife Avith said Henry W. Can¬ 
non, as his guest, respondent knew that said Henry W. Cannon was 
a director in the Great Northern Raihvay Co., and that he Avas presi¬ 
dent either of the Pacific Coast Co. or the Pacific Coast Steamship 
Co., respondent is not sure which, and that the company of Avhich 
said Henry W. Cannon Avas president Avas engaged, among other 
things, in the mining of coal on the Pacific coast of the United States. 

The respondent, when he went with his wife on said trip, did not 
knoAv that said Henry W. Cannon held the other positions Avith cor¬ 
porations referred to in said tenth article, and he has no knoAvledge 
on that subject now. In this connection the respondent avers that 
at the time he and his Avife made said trip Avith said Henry W. Can¬ 
non at the expense of the said Cannon, the respondent was district 
judge of the United States for the middle district of Pennsylvania, 
but that the United States Commerce Court had not then been cre¬ 
ated, and that respondent had no knoAvledge or information that any 
corporation with which said Henry W. Cannon was connected or in 
which he was interested as officer or stockholder had or was likely 
to have litigation in the courts in which respondent presided. The 
respondent denies that the acceptance by him while holding said 
office of United States district judge of “said favors” from said 
Henry W. Cannon was improper, and denies that it had a tendency 
to bring his said office of district judge into disrepute, and denies 
that it did bring his said office of district judge into disrepute. 

Wherefore the respondent denies tliat he Avas or is guilty of mis- 
behaAGor in office, and denies that he Avas or is guilty of a misde¬ 
meanor. as charged in said tenth article. 

Ansavek to Article 11. 

For answer to the eleventh article the respondent says: 

1. That the said eleventh article does not set forth anything wEich, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or mis¬ 
demeanor, as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and 
that therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, shojihl 
not further entertain the charge contained in the eleA^enth article. 

2. Respondent admits that while holding the office of United States 
district judge in and for the middle district of Pennsylvania on the 
16th day of April, 1910. he received and accepted the sum of $525, 
which was contributed and given to the respondent by various attor 
neys who were practitioners in the court presided over by the re¬ 
spondent. He avers that the fact that said sum of money or any 
sum of money was being so raised was unknoAvn to him until the day 
that he and his Avife sailed from NeAV York to go to Europe on the 
trip referred to in the next preceding article, Avhen it Avas handed to 
him in a sealed envelop by Alonzo T. Searle just as the vessel on 
Avhich respondent Avas sailing Avas about to start on its jowrney across 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


21 


the ocean. Said Searle had formerly been an assistant United States 
district attorney for the middle district of Pennsylvania, and at the 
time in question was a member of the judiciary of the State of Penn¬ 
sylvania. He was one of the persons who contributed to said fund. 
Said envelope was handed to respondent by said Alonzo T. Searle 
with the request that it should not be opened until after the vessel 
had sailed, with which request respondent complied. As to the aver¬ 
ments of said eleventh article relating to the manner in which said 
money was raised, this respondent says that he has no such knowl¬ 
edge or information as enables him to either admit or deny the same. 
He admits that Edward R. W. Searle, at the time in question, was 
clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of 
Pennsylvania; that at that time J. B. Woodward was jury commis¬ 
sioner of said court; and that each of them received his appointmertt 
to his said office from the respondent. 

With one or two exceptions, the persons who were mentioned in 
the envelope as having contributed to the said fund were close per¬ 
sonal friends of the respondent, and the gift was understood by the 
respondent to be a testimonial of their friendship and regard and 
Avas receiA^ed by him in the spirit of friendship in Avhich he supposed 
it had been given. The gift could not have been refused without 
impugning the inotiA^es of the giA^ers. 

Wherefore the respondent denies that he Avas or is guilty of misbe¬ 
havior in office, and denies that he was or is guilty of a misdemeanor, 
as charged in said elcA’enth article. 


Ansaver to Article 12. 

k'or answer to the tAvelfth article, the respondent says. 

1. That the said twelfth article does not set forth anything wliich, 
if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or mis¬ 
demeanor, as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and 
that therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should 
not further entertain the charge contained in said twelfth article. 

2. Respondent admits to lie true each and every averment of the 
twelfth article, except that he denies that at the time he appointed 
said J. B. Woodward a jury commissioner, as set forth in said article, 
he knew that said Woodward was a general attorney for the Lehigh 
Valley Railroad Co. The respondent first learned that fact several 
years after said Woodward was so appointed. 

Further answering said tAvelfth article, respondent says that, by 
section 2 of an act of Congress approved June 2, 1879 (21 Stat. L., 
p. 48), which act Avas in force until the adoption by Congress of the 
judicial code, on March 3, 1911, and is continued in force by section 
'276 of said code (36 Stat. L.. p. 1164), it was provided that, in draAV- 
ing jurors for the Federal courts in the State of PennsylAania, said 
jurors should be drawn from a box containing the names of not less 
than 300 persons, which names, the statute provides, “shall have 
been placed therein by the clerk of such court and a commissionei 
to be appointed by the judge thereof, Avhich commissioner shall be a 
citizen of good standing, residing in the district in Avhich such court 
IS held, and a Avell-known member of the principal political 
in the district in Avhich the court is held opposing that to which the 
clerk may belong.” The middle district of Pennsylvania aa as created 


22 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCPIBALD. 


by act of Congress approved March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. L., p. 880), and 
was made np. of 32 counties, of which 21 counties were taken from 
tile western district of Pennsylvania and 11 counties from the eastern 
district. That jiortion of said middle district in which the city of 
Scranton is situated was taken from the Avestern district. It had 
been the custom and practice for a long period of years, in both the 
eastern and the Avestern districts of Pennsylvania, to select a member 
of the bar as jury commissioner to serA^e with the clerk. Soon after 
the creation of the middle district of Pennsylvania EdAvard R. W. 
.Searle, Avho Avas a Republican in politics, Avas appointed clerk of the 
district court for that district by the respondent. It thereupon be¬ 
came the duty of the respondent to appoint a Democrat as jury com¬ 
missioner of that district. The respondent had knoAvn J. Ih Wood- 
Avard, Avho Avas a Avell-knoAvn Democrat, intimately and favorably 
for many years, and, conforming to the custom Avhich had theretofore 
obtained in said eastern and AA^estern districts, and belieAuiig that said 
WoodAvard Avould discharge the duties of jury commissioner faith¬ 
fully and intelligently, and exercising his best judgment in the 
premises, the respondent appointed said J. B. IVoodward for those 
reasons and for none other. 

Wherefore respondent denies that he Avas or is guilty of misbe¬ 
havior in office and denies that he Avas or is guilty of a misdemeanor, 
as charged in said tAvelfth article. 

Ansavek to Article 13. 

For ansAver to the thirteenth article the respondent says: 

1. That the said thirteenth article does not set forth anything 
Avhich, if true, constitutes an impeachable offense or a high crime or 
misdemeanor as defined in the Constitution of the United States, and 
that therefore the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, should 
not further entertain the charge contained in said thirteenth article. 

2. Respondent is advised and aA^ers that in and l>v said article it is 
attempted to combine two distinct and independent charges, depend¬ 
ing upon different facts and to be supported and met by the evidence 
of different witnesses, and that to combine the same in one article 
operates to the serious prejudice of the respondent not only by em¬ 
barrassing him and his counsel in his defense, but in preventing him 
from obtaining the separate judgment of the Senate upon each of 
such alleged offenses. 

Wheretore the respondent prays that the said thirteenth article be 
adjudged to be null and Amid and that the same shall be dismissed. 

3. The respondent is further advised and avers that said article is 
general, vague, and indefinite Avith respect to the first offense sought 
to be charged therein, to Avit, the obtaining of credit from persons 
interested in suits pending in the courts over Avhich respondent pre¬ 
sided. and does not give respondent such information as to the nature 
and character of the charge intended to be made against him as Avill 
enable him to prepare for trial thereon in that it does not inform the 
respondent at Avhat times or at Avhat places or from what persons or 
under Avhat circumstances or in what Avay it is intended to charge that 
the respondent obtained credit, and that to require the respondent to 
further ansAver said charge Avould not be agreeable to laAv or justice. 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARCHBALD. 


28 


herefore the respondent prays that he be not recpiired to further 
defend against the said first charge attempted to be made in the 
thirteenth article. 

4. Not Avaiving, but insisting, upon each of his foregoing objections 
to the thirteenth article, but being unwilling to appear to admit even 
by implication the truth of the charges attem])ted to be made in said 
article, the respondent states as folloAvs: 

As to the first charge attempted to be made in said thirteenth 
article, he admits that on the 29th day of iSIarch, 1901, he was duly 
appointed United States district judge for the middle district of 
Pennsylvania, and that he held such office until the 31st day of Janu¬ 
ary, 1911, when he Avas duly appointed United States circuit judge 
and designated as a judge of the United States Ccmmerce Court. 
Respondent denies that at any time or place he sought Avrongi^dly or 
otherAvise to obtain credit from or through any person or persons 
interested in any court oA^er Avhich he presided or of Avhich he Avas a 
member. 

As to the second charge attempted to be made in said thirteenth 
article, the respondent denies that on the 31st day of March, 1911, 
or at any other time or place he undertook to carry on a general busi¬ 
ness for speculation and profit in the purchase or sale of culm dumps 
or coal lands or other coal properties. He denies that for a valuable 
consideration he at any time undertook to compromise litigation 
pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission. He denies 
that in furtherance of alleged efforts to compromise such litigation 
or in furtherance of alleged speculations in coal properties he will¬ 
fully or iinlaAvfully or corruptly or otherAvise used his influence as a 
judge of the said United States Commerce Court to induce the officers 
of the Erie Railroad Co. or the DelaAvare, LackaAvanna & Western 
Rairoad Co. or the Lackawanna & Wyoming Valley Railroad Co. or 
any other railroad company engaged in interstate commerce to enter 
into any contract or contracts or agreement or agreements in Avhich 
he, the respondent, was financially interested, Avith EdAvard J. 
Williams, John Henry Jones, Thomas H. Jones, George M. Watson, 
or any other person. He denies that in any contract in Avhich he 
Avas interested relating to any purchase of proposed purchase from 
any railroad company of the character aforesaid he eA^er concealed 
or undertook to conceal such interest or connived at such concealment 
by any other jDerson. He avers that so far as he is aAA are, in the 
feAv such cases in which he had such interest, that fact Avas disclosed 
not only to the officers and agents of the company concerned but to 
many other persons. Respondent further admits that in the very 
few cases in which he Avas interested in the proposed purchase of 
culm banks or other coal property from railroad companies he did 
not invest any money or other thing of value, except his own per¬ 
sonal services, in consideration of any interest acquired or sought 
to be acquired by him. He avers that in association Avith others he. 
rendered services in such cases, but he denies that in attempting to 
secure any such contract, agreement, or i)roperty he used or attempted 
to use his influence as such judge Avith the contracting parties thereto 
or any of them, and denies that he received any interest in any such 
contract, agreement, or property in consideration of such influence in 
aiding and assisting in securing same. 


24 


ANSWER OF JUDGE ARC] 

Kespondent admits that in the year 1911, 
the Erie Eailroad Co. and the Delaware, 

Kailroad Co. were engaged in interstate 
Lackawanna & Wyoming Valley Kailroad Co. was so engaged at any 
time during that period defendant does not know. And whether 
the other railroad companies referred to in said thirteenth article, 
but not named, were engaged in interstate commerce during said 
period respondent has no means of either admitting or denying, be¬ 
cause he does not know to what other companies the thirteenth arti¬ 
cle refers. He admits that during the year 1911, and until April 15, 
1912, the Erie Kailroad Co. and the Delaware, Lackawanna & West¬ 
ern Kailroad Co. from time to time had suits pending in the United 
States Commerce Court, and that other railroad companies during 
that time had suits pending in said court. Whether the suits referred 
to but not described in said article were pending at the time of the 
execution of the several contracts and agreements referred to but 
not described in said article the respondent can not say, for the 
reason that he has no means of knowing to what suits or to what 
agreements the article refers. 

The respondent denies that from the 31st day of March, 1911, until 
the 15th day of April, 1912, or at any other times, he was continu¬ 
ously and persistently engaged in endeavoring to secure or in secur¬ 
ing from said railroad companies or from any railroad companies 
contracts or agreements as charged in said thirteenth article. 

Wherefore respondent denies that he was or is guilty of mis¬ 
behavior as such judge and denies that he was or is guilty of 
misdemeanors of office as charged in said thirteenth article. 

And this respondent, in submitting to this honorable Senate sit¬ 
ting as a court of impeachment his answer to the articles of impeach¬ 
ment exhibited against him, respectfully reserves the right to apply 
hereafter from time to time for leave to amend or add to the same 
when and as such amendment or addition may become essential to 
the proper presentation of the defense of the respondent to said 
articles of impeachment. 

Kobert W. Archbald. 

K. W. Archbald, Jr., 

A. S. Worthington, 

Of Counsel for Respondent. 



c 


